Javate v.
Spouses Tiotuico
G.R. No. 187606
March 9, 2015
Doctrine
 The remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available to the
mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of the foreclosed
property from the mortgagor, is made available to a subsequent
purchaser, but only after hearing and after determining that the
subject property is still in the possession of the mortgagor.
Facts:
 Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land which she mortgaged to
Guagua Rural Bank (Bank) as security for a loan. Petitioner failed to
pay and the Bank foreclosed the mortgage. The lot was sold at public
auction where the Bank was the highest bidder. After the one-year
redemption period has expired without petitioner having redeemed
the disputed property, the Bank consolidated its ownership over the
same. Subsequently, herein respondent spouses bought the subject
lot from the Bank and a new title was issued in their name.
 On December 9, 2004, respondent spouses filed a Petition for the
Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the RTC. The RTC granted the
petition but the petitioners appealed all the way to the Supreme
Court. The SC denied the appeal and the subsequent MR.
Thereafter, the SC issued an Entry of Judgment, stating that the
decision had become final and executor on October 8, 2009.
 Meanwhile, on April 1, 2008, respondent spouses filed with the RTC
a motion to implement the Writ of Possession which was earlier
issued by the said court. The RTC granted the motion and denied
the petitioner’s subsequent appeal. Petitioner again appeals all the
way to the SC.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the respondents are entitled, as a matter of right, to
the issuance of a writ of possession when they merely bought the
subject property through private transaction and NOT through land
registration proceedings, judicial foreclosure and extrajudicial
foreclosure?
Held:
Denied
Ratio:
 Petitioner is correct in saying that respondents must resort to “judicial
process” in order for them to obtain possession of the disputed lot.
However, petitioner is wrong in positing that the only appropriate
judicial actions or proceedings that should have been taken by
respondents are either ejectment or a reivindicatory suit. On the
other hand, respondents were correct in asking the court to issue a
writ of possession.
 In the recent case of Okabe v. Saturnino, the RTC issued a writ of
possession to enable a third-party purchaser to obtain possession of
the subject property which was extrajudicially foreclosed. This
Court, applying the rules on execution sale in a suppletory manner,
sustained the issuance of the said writ and held as follows:
The remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available
to the mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of the
foreclosed property from the mortgagor, is made available to a
subsequent purchaser, but only after hearing and after
determining that the subject property is still in the possession of
the mortgagor.
 In the instant case, while respondents' petition for the issuance of a
writ of possession was filed ex-parte, a “hearing” was, nonetheless,
conducted when the RTC gave petitioner her day in court by giving
her the opportunity to file various pleadings to oppose respondent's
petition. “To be heard” does not mean verbal argumentation alone
inasmuch as one may be heard just as effectively through written
explanations, submissions or pleadings.
 Indeed, the Court's pronouncement in Okabe regarding a
subsequent purchaser's right to a writ of possession finds support in
a previous ruling of this Court. In Roxas v. Buan, this Court has held
that a writ of possession obtained by a mortgagee-purchaser in a
foreclosure sale, after the expiration of the redemption period, may
be enforced against the successor-in-interest of the mortgagor.
Conversely, this Court finds logic in ruling that the successor-in-
interest of the mortgagee-purchaser in a foreclosure sale, who
already obtained title over the foreclosed property, may be issued a
writ of possession as against the mortgagor who remains in
possession of the subject property.
 It may not be amiss to reiterate the Court's assertion in Okabe that
to immediately require the subsequent purchaser to file a separate
case of ejectment instead of a petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession will only prolong the proceedings and unduly deny the
subsequent purchaser of possession of the property which he
already bought, as his right to such possession is simply a natural
and necessary incident of his right as an absolute owner of
the property.